On Monday, 30 July 2018, Ted Lemon wrote: > A little less catastrophization might make this conversation more fun! :) > I've yet to see any fun. > Seriously, each of the questions you're asking implies a fairly obvious > answer. For example, fundraising: this is straightforward: always have > enough money to pay all the ADs for the next year or two. Figure out how > to raise that money. If it's not available, then this option isn't open > to us: end of story. Once that endowment exists, keep funding it. If the > funding dries up, oh well, we tried. The only way to find out if this is > possible is to try it; the only reason to try it is that we think it's > worth trying. I think this conversation is about whether we think it's > worth trying (the running consensus appears to be "no," Agreed. And that's the correct conclusion :-) S. > but we haven't > heard much from people who would have tried for IESG if this option were > available). > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:59:32PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > Ted, it sounds like you're suggesting that right now there's no bias, and > > > if this change were made, it would create bias. The reality is that if > > we > > > did exactly the change you suggest, it would indeed shift the bias away > > > from people who can get corporate sponsorship to those who can afford to > > > take bigger risks/work for less money. Of course, that's not the only > > way > > > to do it—we could also make it available as an option, while allowing the > > > old form of sponsorship as well. What's the old quote, "the law, in its > > > infinite grandeur, forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under > > > bridges..." > > > > I wasn't referring to the bias that the people might hold, but the > > bias of the sort of people that would stand for selection by Nomcom if > > it required them to resign from their present job and be paid > > non-profit wages by a SDO. > > > > If you are saying that it would be an option (so either their current > > employer could choose to keep them on their payroll, and allow them to > > continue to accrue equity compesantion), *OR* the IETF would somehow > > find the salary for the AD, somehow, then that would avoid decreasin > > the slate of people willing to stand for selection by Nomcom --- but > > that transfers the burden to the organization that needs to be able to > > find the salary for the AD if it turns out to be necessary. It's hard > > to raise money when it's not clear whether or not it's needed. > > Especially if it turns out if the answer is trying to hold out a tin > > cup and beg for donations (sorry, sponsorships). > > > > Or what other alternative did you have in mind for finding the $$$ to > > pay for a full-time AD's salary? I hope you're not proposing that the > > IETF start charging hundreds or thousands of dollars for > > fourth-generation xerox copies, ala what was needed to get a hold of a > > (legal) copy of the ASN.1 spec from ANSI.... > > > > - Ted > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 06:23:40PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > > > > > ADs don’t choose their terms: nomcom does. > > > > > > > > So this biases the people available to nomcom to those people who are > > > > either (a) consultants, or (b) willing to resign from their well-paid > > > > corporate job to take a job with a non-profit SDO. > > > > > > > > I don't believe this will result increasing the quality of the slate > > > > of candidates available to Nomcom compared to what we have now. Which > > > > was the whole point of this proposal, was it not? > > > > > > > > - Ted > > > > > > >
